Onyx8 wrote:"I didn't say they were manufacturing machine tools at the time of the early Egyptian pyramid building, I only asserted that they were using them."

That is priceless.

The aliens dropped them off whenever they came by to pick up resources.

If the Israelites were wandering the desert for 40 years, where are all the worn out sandals, dried out turds, power bar wrappers and Gatorade bottles?

PS. Rod, hasn't the Institute for Creationist Retardation made up anything about why DNA repair mechanisms are required by perfect organisms yet?

Made of Stars wrote:If the Israelites were wandering the desert for 40 years, where are all the worn out sandals, dried out turds, power bar wrappers and Gatorade bottles?

I recall reading somewhere that since the 6 day war, when Israel gained control of the Sinai Desert to at least very recently (with Israel having a peace treaty with the previous Egyptian Government) the desert has been positively crowded with Jewish achaeologists with a very obvious agenda who have been desparate to find physical evidence of The Exodous. Despite their very best efforts in over 40 years of digging they've found nothing.

rodcarty wrote:

Shrunk wrote:OK, I'll bite. Give us a single prediction about biology that creationism made, and which was later proven to be correct.

How about two.

A common argument leveled against creation science is that it has no predictive value. Historically, the evolution model of common descent predicted that we would see continuity among all organisms and that they could all be traced to a single-celled ancestor. Alternatively, the creation model predicts that we should see discontinuity among various taxa because God made them after their kinds. The current evidence suggests that certain organisms are discontinuous with other organisms. For example, snakes have unique characteristics that set them apart as a taxon, making them discontinuous with other organisms and classified as an apobaramin. This initial investigation also indicates that many snakes have the ability to hybridize, even when they are geographically isolated, and are capable of a great degree of variation within a “species.”

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/snake_baramin.htm

As Sovereign has pointed out, that article does not even start to provide any evidence to support it's claim of snakes as constituting a "baramin." It really is a bad joke. How does the fact that some snakes can hybridize with others falsify evolution, or support creationism?

If I have time, I'll post an explanation of how snakes demonstrate continuity with all other life forms.

All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly; exactly as predicted by the creation model.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html

A very partial list of some of the beneficial mutations that have been directly observed:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

I asked for creationist predictions that had been confirmed, not ones that have failed. You're 0 for 2. The question still stands, awaiting your answer.

You can only assert there are no discordant results by totally ignoring the earlier discussion about moon rocks.

I haven't ignored it. That was just another massive failure on your part.

rodcarty wrote:All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly; exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Wow. Just wow.

I struggle to comprehend how such outright lies, such complete falsehoods can be uttered by any human being who likes to think of themselves they contain even a shred of intellectual honesty. Interestingly the ludicrously lie-filled shitpile of a creationist article that makes this claim doesn't even bother to produce any citations to back up the claim. But I see Shrunk has already blown a galaxycluster-sized hole in that claim anyway.

The fitness of mutations are measured in terms of conferring the organism an increased chance of reproductive success. Under that definition, any mutations that makes the fruitfly, or indeed any organism, more likely to get laid(or in asexual species simply to reproduce) constitutes a beneficial mutation.

Rumraket wrote:

rodcarty wrote:All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly; exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Wow. Just wow.

I struggle to comprehend how such outright lies, such complete falsehoods can be uttered by any human being who likes to think of themselves they contain even a shred of intellectual honesty.
The fitness of mutations are measured in terms of conferring the organism an increased chance of reproductive success. Under that definition, any mutations that makes the fruitfly, or indeed any organism, more likely to get laid(or in asexual species simply to reproduce) constitutes a beneficial mutation.

Where are the newly-evolved ninja fruit flies with awesome nunchuku skills, damn it!?

They live in Australia Lucid!

Bloody hell, is that how we got our mosquitoes?!

rodcarty wrote:
How about two.

A common argument leveled against creation science is that it has no predictive value. Historically, the evolution model of common descent predicted that we would see continuity among all organisms and that they could all be traced to a single-celled ancestor. Alternatively, the creation model predicts that we should see discontinuity among various taxa because God made them after their kinds. The current evidence suggests that certain organisms are discontinuous with other organisms. For example, snakes have unique characteristics that set them apart as a taxon, making them discontinuous with other organisms and classified as an apobaramin. This initial investigation also indicates that many snakes have the ability to hybridize, even when they are geographically isolated, and are capable of a great degree of variation within a “species.”

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/snake_baramin.htm

All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly; exactly as predicted by the creation model.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html

How about I direct you to this postabout fruit flies. It might be a little long and certainly longer than the answers in Genesis, but it is well thought-through and intelligent. (Thank you Cali!)

Regarding the "no beneficial mutations" canard: It is not even necessary to provide a list of observed beneficial mutations to refute this claim. The claim is ridiculous on its own terms. To illustrate:



The above is a mother black bear and her cub. But, you'll notice, the younger black bear isn't actually black. He has a mutation that causes him to have white fur. (The mother also has the mutation, but as it is recessive she does not have white fur. The location of the mutation is actually known and, interestingly, is at the same gene that causes red hair and fair skin in humans.)

Though there is some evidence that the trait is advantageous in some ways (white bears seem to have greater success catching fish) it could not really be called a beneficial mutation, since the large majority of black bears remain, well, black.
However, in a different environment, the situation is quite different:



These, of course, are polar bears (For some reason, polar bears always seem to come to mind when discussing creationists). In their arctic environment the advantage of white fur should be obvious enough that I need not elaborate on it.

The point is this: We know from the above that mutations causing white fur in bears can occur. And it is also apparent that whether this mutation is "beneficial" depends on the evironment in which the bear lives. So for the creationist to maintain that beneficial mutations cannot occur, they are in essence saying that a bear living in a temperate environment can develop a mutation for white fur, but if you move that bear to the Arctic this somehow becomes impossible. Beneficial mutations don't occur, so a mutation for white fur can't happen in the Arctic. It can only happen in a setting where it is not beneficial. This claim seems obviously absurd to me.

So, while I know you have a lot of questions to handle already, rodcarty. But I would appreciate your trying to address this one as well: What mysterious force exists that prevents a bear, or any other mammal, from developing white fur only in an environment where this would be beneficial, when it can can do this in any other environment?

Shrunk wrote:
(For some reason, polar bears always seem to come to mind when discussing creationists).

Cyoot bears:

Where's rodcarty gone? I guess they're regrouping.

Made of Stars wrote:Where's rodcarty gone? I guess they're regrouping.

I'm sure if it weren't for our existence, they'd all be riling to tear each other's throats out as despicable heathens.

Pointy end first!

Animavore wrote:

rodcarty wrote:Your argument is flawed, probably as a result of ignorance of the Bible. One does not need to find evidence for God to find out what God's will at least on a lot of things is. It's written in the Bible. That's where you will find plenty on such topics as testing God, and what types of tests God will cooperate with and which ones He will not. It will also give you guidelines specifically on how to make prayer effective in order to test it.

Excellent. So if I follow the advise of Gideon and place a towel in the middle of my kitchen floor and ask that God make the towel wet while leaving the surrounding floor dry I should expect this to happen over night.

I'll publish my findings in the morning with pics.

I hadn't forgotten about this. Here's my paper which I present for peer-review.



To begin our study we took an average cloth found in any common bathroom (fig. 1). We chose a nice, baby blue piece with turquise trimming made from 100% cotton.



Next we placed it on to a nice, dry, lino floor in a room with low humidity at night-time. Just before some bedtime cookies and cocoa. (fig. 2).



In order to test Yahweh for guidance we needed to come up with a question which could only have a 'Yes' answer as we wanted to test for wetness, not dryness, which would prove inconclusive. The question we chose was, "If I want to avoid death is it advisable that I continue breathing?" (fig. 3) The subject to recite the prayer was so based on awesomeness and we felt God couldn't possibly lie to him and wish him dead as his exit from the planet would leave an empty spot which He would then have to fill by trying to recreate something as awesome again. As any rock band struggling with that difficult third album this is no easy task. The subject was then advised to get some beauty sleep (not that he needs it) and we would examine the results in the morning.



The next morning we awoke to rambunctious teenagers jostling home from a session amidt the dawn chorous. We went down to our specially prepared dining room floor and checked our towel (fig. 4). On initial inspection the towel appeared even dryer than it was the previous night, still Comfort soft and alpine fresh. More tests were clearly needed to make sure our fingers weren't fooled so we preformed the classic 'wring' test to make sure no moisture escaped us (fig. 5). The wringing of the towel produced not a drop of H20 but a few motes of dust were shook loose.

[fig 4 and 5 shown in the post below]

To conclude.
Our tests have revealed that either Yahweh is non-existent or he is, to coin a phrase, fucking with us. We see no reason, based on the evidence, to conclude that He is real. More tests may be needed to be sure but for now there can be no doubt that the tests for Yahwehic presence, as detailed by Gideon, are as useless as rescue whistle on a spacesuit. Our advise is that the guidances in the Bible may be considered faulty and may need to be re-examined in light of a modern, naturalistic worldview.

Literature cited.

God, Gideon, et al. 1500bc. Judges. 6: 36-40.

Post of the Month! Do we do prizes for that? Well, anyway, buy yourself a prize, ani.

Just an update, my paper has been cited in a further study.


Chairman Bill, 2011. Does God aid the folicly challenged againt juvenile persecutors by means of bear mawling?